citywomble wrote:There has been some debate over the hazards posed by the medians on West Coast Drive and the jury is about 50/50 on whether they actually make the road safer. Hopefully further improvements can be made and a request for the installation of a bike lane and reduction in motor traffic lane to empower cyclists (and slow traffic speeds) is currently with state government agencies.

Perhaps I am misreading the above, but if it indicates a full sized bike lane on West Coast Drive, that would just about make it impossible for cars to pass a cyclist without entering the bike lane. However I am in favour of anything that slows down car traffic in environments where there are a lot of vulnerable road users.

West Coast Highway should be a one-way street for cars, with the other half of the road given over to cyclists riding in both directions.

Thank you for the interesting comments posted. In response to the request I see no reason why any future joint operation could not be advised to this forum.

In answer to some of the issues raised I would say the following:

1) The operation was not to catch any cyclists but to identify and advise of any illegal or unwise activities and ensure, by handing out a leaflet, that the rules and requirement for Shared Paths was understood. The following were noted:a - Many users were not aware that the Road Traffic Code 2000 (RTC 2000) applied to footpaths.b - Several cyclists warned no helmetsc - Several warned as they gave no warning when passing at speed from behind.d - Several warned for No Bell on the Bikee - Several Warned Too fastf - Far too many warned NO LIGHTS after dark and many more noticed diverting to side streets. This is very serious as the many joggers and pedestrians cannot see cyclists at speed without lights.

The Police were extremely courteous and issued no infringements even though there were multiple 'offences'.

2) The operation was undertaken following repeated complaints by other path users, observed and dangerous behavior by some cyclists during the beach works, and failure to comply with legal signage and traffic management. Also two recent accidents on Shared Paths in Stirling where the pedestrian was hit without warning by a cyclist.

3) Andrew, please bring the act and I will educate . The crossings you refer to are north of Watermans and hence in Joondalup not Stirling. Whilst I do not personally agree with either the solution on the ground, or the application of law at this location, the fact is that the law was properly applied in that location (but provides an even more dangerous (but legal) solution). Your comments:

In my view the relevant authority should ensure its engineering and design staff are properly trained in the law to ensure that infrastructure reflects the actual laws of this State. For those interested the relevant sections of the Road Traffic Code 2000 as amended November 14, 2009 are Sections 57 and 58.

were ill advised and wrong. s57 applies to the carriageway of the continuing road and not the path alongside, s58 applies to pedestrians and not cyclists (who are vehicles entering and leaving the carriageway)The path terminates with a kerb and crosses an access road - Cyclists must Give Way (as lawfully signed on the path) while pedestrian do retain Right of Way.In that respect the City of Joondalup was correct and cyclists must observe both the rules and the painted sign.

4) Many cyclists stopped indicated that they were using the RSP because the adjacent road felt unsafe and/or motorists hooted and said "get on the path". In fact many cyclists utilise the road and are safely overtaken in part because of the calming effect of the median islands. Almost universal support to the City's current proposal to have a 1.2m cycle lane provided by reducing the remaining vehicle lane to 2.7m. Lets hope this trial gets the Go Ahead.

5) Many cyclists on this forum complain of disassociated pedestrians with Ipods. In fact about 50% of the cyclists stopped were listening to Ipods and had to be woken up! Its a bit rich to be Ipoded up at 30 to 40 kph and complain about Ipoded peds at 3 kph!

The intention is not to inhibit but promote cycling. Alternatives for different ability levels is fundemental to the Citys approach in the New plan currently being drafted. When this is available for public consultation a link will be posted on this forum.

Andrew, the City is well aware of the apparant conflict between the advisory 20k signs for the speed humps (a physical constraint) and the lack of warning of the extant 10k limit (a legal restriction for parks etc). This matter, which crosses several administrations and departments is currently being reviewed. At this stage, however, the City is reluctant to apply a 10k limit to the Shared Path that crosses this reserve, that is on the PSP route (but not a PSP), as it would detract from its current use.

Finally, I would ask any cyclist on a Shared Path how they would be able to GIVE WAY to ANY pedestrian (who has right of way when walking on or crossing that path) when travelling at more than 20 kph. As the law stands (but perhaps lawyers do not adequately understand) there should be a PRESUMPTION OF GUILT for any cyclist hitting a pedestrian under almost any circumstance - beware!

A Shared Path is NOT a cyclepath, it IS a footpath. (ref definitions in RTC 2000).

Please note that, as it has become quite informative and is of wider interest, I am emailing a link to this thread to DoT, MRWA (who are contributors to, or aware of, this forum) as well as the our cycling contact at WA Police.

Thoglette wrote:Have the planners at Stirling had a look the traffic works carried out along the southern shore of the Swan in East Freo (around and upstream of The Left Bank)?

Aushiker wrote:Are these recent works or are you referring to the existing "bicycle lanes"? If you are referring to the existing ones, the one on the southern side often gets covered in debris, plant matter, flooded etc at various points making it risky to use; I have been hit by a 4WD drifting into the northern one as as I was coming out of a slow down point and on group rides they are just plain useless. We always claim the lane along here. Oh there is also the issue of the lane on both sides at times running along side car parking areas. Nothing like an engineered killing zone (door zone).

That certain car drivers can't stay out of cycle lanes wasn't my point

Rather, the approach to roundabouts, particularly on the north side where the cycle lane goes straight through, could be useful for parts of the WC Hwy. Can't recall if the other direction is any use.

I was going to dismiss your comments on groups and the lane out-of-hand but as there is a legislative requirement for cyclist to use the lane it is appropriate: the roundabout bypasses tend not to be neither straight enough nor wide enough for safety when used in numbers and at group speeds (40 kph+). Wonderful on your own at 20 kph.

fixed wrote:

CycleSnail wrote:West Coast Highway should be a one-way street for cars, with the other half of the road given over to cyclists riding in both directions.

With the one-way system changing at random times throughout the day ??

Err maybe we need to sit down and look at the rather radical impact this would have and discuss with local residents and beach users before we endorse such a modification to a busy road.

What? Like that the old West Coast Hwy south of Trigg is now, essentially, a cul de sac.

While Cyclesnail's comments are at one end of public opinion they are not far from the reality in this and other areas where previous "main roads" along the coast (or through a town) have been chopped up to remove commuters and other high speed through traffic.

I'm not convinced that cracking down on dodgy cyclist behaviour is a good way to promote cycling. Cracking down on dodgy cyclist behaviour is a good idea in general though.

Recreational Shared Paths and Principal Shared Paths obviously have different intended uses. How do I tell them apart? Are they any different in legislation? Presumably pedestrians still have right of way on PSPs despite the fact that they're intended as primary commuter routes - why?

A situation where the onus is entirely on the cyclist to avoid any collision ever is unreasonable, and will be no matter how much someone wants to rant and rave. If you have cyclists and pedestrians sharing a resource, they both have to be responsible. This means pedestrians need to pay enough attention to their environment to not walk into oncoming traffic, and cyclists have to pass with appropriate margins and appropriate warnings at appropriate speeds. The law might say it's all on cyclist, but it's not workable, and never will be - pedestrians need to be educated in how to behave to result in a situation where the cyclists _can_ avoid them. Educating the pedestrians _and_ the cyclists will give a far better result than just picking on the cyclists, and this really is what it looks like to me.

Thoglette wrote:I was going to dismiss your comments on groups and the lane out-of-hand but as there is a legislative requirement for cyclist to use the lane it is appropriate: the roundabout bypasses tend not to be neither straight enough nor wide enough for safety when used in numbers and at group speeds (40 kph+). Wonderful on your own at 20 kph.

Hi

Well I am glad you didn't dismiss my comment on groups. You mentioned a "legistative requirement for cyclist to use the lane it is appropriate. Can you point to the relevant section of the WA Road Traffic Code that states this?

As far as I can tell (and I am always happy to be corrected) the relevant section of the Road Code states

213. Riding in a bicycle lane

Wherever a bicycle lane is provided as part of a carriageway, and is in a reasonable condition for use, a rider of a bicycle shall use that portion of a carriageway and no other.

and a bicycle lane is defined in the Code (Section 3) as:

bicycle lane means a marked lane, or the part of a marked lane â€”

(a) beginning at a â€œbicycle laneâ€ sign applying to the lane;and(b) ending at the nearest of the following:(i) an â€œend bicycle laneâ€ sign applying to the lane;(ii) an intersection (unless the lane is at the unbroken side of the continuing road at a T-intersection or continued across the intersection by broken lines);(iii) if the carriageway ends at a dead end â€” the end of the carriageway;

The Road Code on page 4 provides an illustration of a bicycle lane sign and bicycle lane end sign which are these ones (there are other variations apparently):

As far as I can recall and I ride Riverside Drive, East Fremantle regularly there is no bicycle lane signs in either direction and hence the "lane" on the road is not a bicycle lane as defined in the Road Code and hence there is no legislative requirement to ride only in the lane. If you are aware of bicycle lane signs (not painted road markings) on this section can you let me know where they are so I can check them out myself. I prefer to ride in accordance with the law and would not like to be breaking it just because I was not aware of the signs.

If you are interested in seeing a bicycle lane as defined there is one on Port Beach Road, North Fremantle, however it is a rather short section. I am sure there are others, but this one I am aware of in the vicinity.

RegardsAndrew

Last edited by Aushiker on Tue May 04, 2010 12:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

Thank you for your kind offer, but I think I will decline. Let me explain why:

The crossings you refer to are north of Watermans and hence in Joondalup not Stirling.

Ahh, I didn't actually say it was the City of Stirling. I purposefully used the term "responsible authority" as I was not clear as to whether the section I was thinking of was in the City of Stirling or City of Joondalup so thanks for clarifying that.

were ill advised and wrong. s57 applies to the carriageway of the continuing road and not the path alongside, s58 applies to pedestrians and not cyclists (who are vehicles entering and leaving the carriageway)The path terminates with a kerb and crosses an access road - Cyclists must Give Way (as lawfully signed on the path) while pedestrian do retain Right of Way.In that respect the City of Joondalup was correct and cyclists must observe both the rules and the painted sign.

Ah, I think you need to review the relevant sections are little more carefully:

Section 57 in full for your information (my emphasis and my comments are in [blue]):

Giving way when entering a carriageway from land abutting a carriageway or road [i.e., exiting the car park on to the road]

(1) A driver entering a carriageway from land abutting the carriageway, without a traffic-control signal or a â€œstopâ€ sign,stop line, â€œgive wayâ€ sign or give way line, shall give way to â€”

(a) any vehicle travelling on the carriageway or turning into the carriageway (except a vehicle turning right into thecarriageway from land abutting the carriageway);(b) any pedestrian on the carriageway; and(c) any vehicle or pedestrian on any land abutting the carriageway (including a path) that the driver crosses to enter the carriageway. [a bicycle is a vehicle and bicycle on the path has right of way]

Vehicle B has to give way to the pedestrian in this illustration

(2) On or before 31 May 2001, a driver that is approaching, or has arrived at, an intersection (other than a T-intersection) by or from an unsealed carriageway shall give way to â€”

(a) all vehicles travelling in either direction along the sealed carriageway; and(b) all vehicles turning or intending to turn preparatory to leaving the sealed carriageway to enter the unsealed carriageway.

Section 58

58. A driver entering land abutting a carriageway or road from a place on a carriageway without a traffic-control signal or a â€œstopâ€

(a) any pedestrian on the carriageway;(b) any vehicle or pedestrian on any land abutting the carriageway that the driver crosses or enters;(c) if the driver is turning right from the carriageway â€” any oncoming vehicle on the carriageway that is goingstraight ahead or turning left; and (d) if the carriageway the driver is leaving ends at a T-intersection opposite the land abutting the carriagewayand the driver is crossing the continuing road â€” any vehicle on the continuing road.

Vehicle B has to give way to the pedestrian in this illustration

Andrew, the City is well aware of the apparant conflict between the advisory 20k signs for the speed humps (a physical constraint) and the lack of warning of the extant 10k limit (a legal restriction for parks etc). This matter, which crosses several administrations and departments is currently being reviewed. At this stage, however, the City is reluctant to apply a 10k limit to the Shared Path that crosses this reserve, that is on the PSP route (but not a PSP), as it would detract from its current use.

I was referring to the car park and not the PSP route but I am pleased to hear that the Council is aware of the issue. However, I must point out the relevant local law referred to previously is quite clear in its language and it uses the term "local government property". Now the intention may have meant for it to apply to parks etc as you suggest, however, irrespective of the intention, the wording is hardly ambiguous and hence it currently applies to all local government property owned by the Council.

A Shared Path is NOT a cyclepath, it IS a footpath. (ref definitions in RTC 2000).

shared path means an area open to the public (except a separated footpath) that is designated for, or has as one of itsmain uses, use by both the riders of bicycles and pedestrians, and includes a length of path beginning at a â€œshared pathâ€ sign or â€œshared pathâ€ road marking and ending at the nearest of the following:

(a) an â€œend shared pathâ€ sign or â€œend shared pathâ€ road marking;(b) a â€œno bicyclesâ€ sign, or a â€œno bicyclesâ€ road marking;(c) a â€œbicycle pathâ€ sign;(d) a carriageway;(e) the end of the path;

I hope that clarifies matters.

RegardsAndrew

Last edited by Aushiker on Tue May 04, 2010 12:06 am, edited 2 times in total.

wintal wrote:Recreational Shared Paths and Principal Shared Paths obviously have different intended uses. How do I tell them apart? Are they any different in legislation? Presumably pedestrians still have right of way on PSPs despite the fact that they're intended as primary commuter routes - why?

Hi

Neither terms are used in the Western Australian Road Code 2000 so I assume they are administrative terms used by Department of Transport and/or Councils for their own identification purposes unless there are other regulations or legislation that define them. The relevant section of the Road Code defines a shared path as (section 3, page 24) as:

shared path means an area open to the public (except a separated footpath) that is designated for, or has as one of itsmain uses, use by both the riders of bicycles and pedestrians, and includes a length of path beginning at a â€œshared pathâ€ sign or â€œshared pathâ€ road marking and ending at the nearest of the following:

(a) an â€œend shared pathâ€ sign or â€œend shared pathâ€ road marking;(b) a â€œno bicyclesâ€ sign, or a â€œno bicyclesâ€ road marking;(c) a â€œbicycle pathâ€ sign;(d) a carriageway;(e) the end of the path;

Found this little bit of information, so yes I do believe they are administrative terms and are designed to distinguish between the role of the two different types of shared paths:

Principal shared path routes

Principal shared path (PSP) routes are being created along the passenger railway, freeway and major highway corridors of metropolitan Perth.

The primary purpose of PSP routes is to provide high standard access for the commuter cyclist. The railway and freeway corridors provide an ideal location for a PSP, as there are limited crossover interruptions.

The responsibility for funding and constructing a PSP is dependent on the jurisdictional authority and whether the PSP is a stand-alone project or part of a major infrastructure project such as a freeway extension.

Most Principal Shared Path projects are considered to be PBN Major Projects coordinated by the State Government. Some projects are coordinated by local government authorities and are eligible for grant funding through the PBN Local Government Grants Program.

Recreational shared paths

Recreational shared path routes have been identified along the coastline, rivers and areas of public open space.

The primary purpose of recreational paths is to provide for cycling and walking as a leisure activity. These paths are in recreational areas and are often well removed from vehicle traffic, making a more pleasant cycling journey.

Perth is in a unique position where much of the coastal and river foreshore is publicly owned, making it more accessible to the community.

One of the key strategies of the Perth Bicycle Network plan is to create a continuous path network around the Swan and Canning rivers and along the coastal foreshore.

Perthâ€™s recreational path system has the potential to attract cycle tourism to the State. Cycle tourism is a growth industry throughout the world, especially in Europe and North America.

Recreational shared paths are the responsibility of the asset owner, which could be local government, the Department of Environment and Conservation (formerly CALM) or the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC). Specific projects are generally coordinated and funded by the asset owner.

oh man... you guys are one scary bunch to argue with... so anyways aushiker thanks for your comment on my blog just dont tell anyone shhhhh... i ordered explorer 8 from ah-ups

also i did not know about the bell on the bike.. so pretty much every bike out there that is sold is pretty much is illegal to be on the road because it does not come equip with a bell to make it a road worthy vehicle? (my nub basic wording)

by the way, I am "for" with the random crack down on cyclist. its like speeding motorist complaining about speed cameras. only problem is cyclist did not get any formal training/education like motorist so majority of cyclist out there do not know the law for cycling so they have to learn the hard way.

It would be nice if the transport body can give out cycling road rules booklets to the Bike shops in Perth and tell the organizers of their weekend rides to educate their members.

citywomble wrote:In fact many cyclists utilise the road and are safely overtaken in part because of the calming effect of the median islands.

After reading this there is no doubt where citywomble is coming from. what a fine little speech. Its good that some opf the powers that be feel a need to have someone placate us here.Don't get me wrong it is good to have input from all sources that way we can be better informed, and thankyou for your information. The last post is stretching credibility just a tad far though on more than one point.having lived near and ridden many times from northbeach to whitfords the narrow little sections; which seem to be worse just before the observatory and is shocking just before the MAAC club, which actually scared me onto the footpath a couple of times. Added the huge amount of work traffic that commute home on the west coast hyw; I can inform you that the median strips do nothing more than put mirrors nearer to me.

The crackdown is to let cyclist know that shared paths are now to be for pedestrians. The speed limit is decided and will now be enforced and will continued to be expanded within the city of stirling. the council has enlisted the help of the state police to enforce the speed- YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN NOTICE!!

citywomble wrote:4) Many cyclists stopped indicated that they were using the RSP because the adjacent road felt unsafe and/or motorists hooted and said "get on the path".

So according to eyewitness accounts we have cyclists being cautioned for riding at a safe speed on the rsp and the police turning a blind eye to cyclists being abused and harassed to the point of being driven off the road they have a legal right too, even though, according to Jon, many people made a complaint to the police about the conduct of the motorist.sorry Jon but your council and the west Australian police should feel ashamed.

Please inform us when the council is having its crackdown on abusive dangerous motorists

Principal shared path (PSP) routes are being created along the passenger railway, freeway and major highway corridors of metropolitan Perth.

The primary purpose of PSP routes is to provide high standard access for the commuter cyclist. The railway and freeway corridors provide an ideal location for a PSP, as there are limited crossover interruptions.

The responsibility for funding and constructing a PSP is dependent on the jurisdictional authority and whether the PSP is a stand-alone project or part of a major infrastructure project such as a freeway extension.

Most Principal Shared Path projects are considered to be PBN Major Projects coordinated by the State Government. Some projects are coordinated by local government authorities and are eligible for grant funding through the PBN Local Government Grants Program.

Recreational shared paths

Recreational shared path routes have been identified along the coastline, rivers and areas of public open space.

The primary purpose of recreational paths is to provide for cycling and walking as a leisure activity. These paths are in recreational areas and are often well removed from vehicle traffic, making a more pleasant cycling journey.

Perth is in a unique position where much of the coastal and river foreshore is publicly owned, making it more accessible to the community.

One of the key strategies of the Perth Bicycle Network plan is to create a continuous path network around the Swan and Canning rivers and along the coastal foreshore.

Perthâ€™s recreational path system has the potential to attract cycle tourism to the State. Cycle tourism is a growth industry throughout the world, especially in Europe and North America.

Recreational shared paths are the responsibility of the asset owner, which could be local government, the Department of Environment and Conservation (formerly CALM) or the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC). Specific projects are generally coordinated and funded by the asset owner.

RegardsAndrew

Thanks for that Andrew.

Given the definitions above, I find it a bit rich to claim that RSPs should be intended for low speed use. I'd say there's probably more people in Perth that do higher speed cycling as 'recreation' than people that trundle along at walking pace (not that I think they shouldn't be catered for, but an automatic assumption that anyone going over 20km/hr is 'commuting' is more than a little bogus).

Also, given the terms RSP and PSP obey the same rules, and are impossible for someone to distinguish without memorising various maps beforehand, this means as a practical matter then will be treated identically by their users.

I think some people are probably puzzled by the insistence by some people on this forum in understanding the actual rules rather than just accepting what we're told by various authorities - but people have to remember that the rules _matter_. You can't expect us to accept half the rules, then just believe what you say for other things. Similarly, it matters that the rules form a consistent whole, it matters that they don't have dozens of loopholes and ambiguities, and it matters that we can behave in a manner which seems reasonable, and not be at odds with the laws. That's not really the current case.

(I realise this sounds like I might be speaking for others, that's not my intent, but I know this represents the views of various people I know).

rustguard wrote:I can inform you that the median strips do nothing more than put mirrors nearer to me.

+1rode mt lawley yanchep return on Saturdaythe section from Trigg to Hillarys was very stressful. Averaged 36 along here due to the tailwind.the presence of cars behind me and their eagerness to pass, I was forced by sheer self preservation to claim the lane when the median appeared.I gave the car driver a wave for the forebearance, but I get the feeling they thought their latte was getting cold.

fixed wrote:the section from Trigg to Hillarys was very stressful. Averaged 36 along here due to the tailwind.

Hi

Sorry to hear this. I ride this road most days as it is my regular commute route and really don't find most of it stressful, well with the exception of the roundabouts north of Hillarys and the Mullaloo drivers.

However, what I do find is that on the days (few and far between sadly) when I am fast, as you were, that the traffic tends to not pass me and tends to hang back, whereas when I am slower, they pass like normal. I do find the hanging back a bit disconcerting at first but joy of the ride soon takes over.

I guess this is one stretch of road where one just gets used to riding it.

I ride this section 4-5 days a week. I won't ride on the path its far too dangerous with people not keeping left, dogs wandering on and off leads on both sides of the path, walkers and runners in groups taking up the whole path, walkers in the early morning and evening with no lights on and yes I said lights. There is a group of ladies who run further South on the path who use lights they are easy to see, others in the dark are nearly impossible to see.

I've not found drivers abusive the odd young commodore or ute driver but on the whole they are fine. The other issue is the speed through that section with a tail wind I sit very close or on the speed limit the other way in the morning 30kph plus most of the time. Itâ€™s just too dangerous on the path.

If the council is interested the side of the road north bound just after the marine lab is often over grown with salt bush has glass and sand. The stretch of road all along the coast (all councils) has allot of glass.

Marty Moose wrote:If the council is interested the side of the road north bound just after the marine lab is often over grown with salt bush has glass and sand. The stretch of road all along the coast (all councils) has allot of glass.

MM - I hope you've written to your local member or the premier's office requesting the introduction of a container deposit scheme of at least 50c per stubbie and $1 for a big brown/wine bottle.

With point of (whole)sale levy of about 10% more to cover transaction costs the refund and collection end could be done by councils (who are currently responsible for cleaning up the mess).

The scouts and those "sleeping rough" would also make a buck by cleaning up.

This can be supported solely from a purist economics perspective - the cost of purchase does not include the cost of disposal and so the market is distorted.

Or one can appeal to "consider the children". There's been at least one child in PMH this year due to broken glass

One of my memories of Germany was watching a pair of "rough young men" staggering back to the bottle shop carefully nursing their crate of empties between them. No way any of those were going to get hurled out the car window!

Thoroughfare is not defined in this document, but would assume that things like shared paths are 'thoroughfares' and consequently are excempt from any 10km restriction the City of Stirling want to implement under this local law.

I've read the feedback on this topic of being requested to 'Slow Down Sir', and I'm still of the opinion I was doing nothing wrong when requested to slow down.

Thoroughfare is not defined in this document, but would assume that things like shared paths are 'thoroughfares' and consequently are excempt from any 10km restriction the City of Stirling want to implement under this local law.

I've read the feedback on this topic of being requested to 'Slow Down Sir', and I'm still of the opinion I was doing nothing wrong when requested to slow down.

Nice one rolandp, but shhhhh don't tell them or the buggers will amend the law

fixed wrote:the section from Trigg to Hillarys was very stressful. Averaged 36 along here due to the tailwind.

Hi

Sorry to hear this. I ride this road most days as it is my regular commute route and really don't find most of it stressful, well with the exception of the roundabouts north of Hillarys and the Mullaloo drivers.

However, what I do find is that on the days (few and far between sadly) when I am fast, as you were, that the traffic tends to not pass me and tends to hang back, whereas when I am slower, they pass like normal. I do find the hanging back a bit disconcerting at first but joy of the ride soon takes over.

I guess this is one stretch of road where one just gets used to riding it.

Marty Moose wrote:If the council is interested the side of the road north bound just after the marine lab is often over grown with salt bush has glass and sand. The stretch of road all along the coast (all councils) has allot of glass.

Marty Moose wrote:If the council is interested the side of the road north bound just after the marine lab is often over grown with salt bush has glass and sand. The stretch of road all along the coast (all councils) has allot of glass.

MM

Well someone listened ist spotless now

Thanks Marty

Hi

I logged a hazard report in respect to a southbound section early in the week and saw the road sweeper in action on Wednesday. May have done both sides.

Who is online

About the Australian Cycling Forums

The largest cycling discussion forum in Australia for all things bike; from new riders to seasoned bike nuts, the Australian Cycling Forums are a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.